The Boston Hitch

[squarerigger]

Hello All,

The above name was given by Dr. Robert Moses to the hitch shown in the attached document here http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3876695/BostonHitchManuscript_ImagesEmbedded_Rev1.pdf




Do any of you have any knowledge of this hitch having been published elsewhere?  Have you seen it in use (and documented in use by photograph/sketch/dated submission etc.)?

Do write back here with your comments which I will be happy to pass on to Dr. Moses,

SR

[roo]

Hello All,

The above name was given by Dr. Robert Moses to the hitch shown in the attached document here http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3876695/BostonHitchManuscript_ImagesEmbedded_Rev1.pdf




Do any of you have any knowledge of this hitch having been published elsewhere?  Have you seen it in use (and documented in use by photograph/sketch/dated submission etc.)?

Do write back here with your comments which I will be happy to pass on to Dr. Moses,

SR

Do you have anything smaller than 54 MB?

[squarerigger]

Hi Roo,

If you would like the text-only version I can post that.  I will dig and find it,

SR

[squarerigger]

As promised, the text-only version.  A second link for the photographs-only pdf is too big so I will try to add a URLink in another post - meanwhile, enjoy!


SR

[squarerigger]

OK,

Here is a link to my dropbox for you to see the photographs - 5 MB or so.  See if that works for you.  https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdbjghnf7jyiuol/BostonHitchManuscript_Figures%5B1%5D.pdf

SR

[roo]

For convenience, see attached excerpt from the .pdf.

[roo]

I've always liked the ABOK 1688 (aka Sailor's Hitch) upon which this is based.  I show it in a mirror image to draw out the similarity to the Constrictor Knot.  The 1688 is generally secure, simple, versatile, and always jam-proof. 

I would expect any complication to increase security at the expense of some simplicity, as Robert indicates.  His security test is fine as far as it goes, but I'd like to see more tests with slack shaking in more substantial material in order to simulate wind-whipping.  I'd also like to see more tests in stiffer, slicker, or more elastic material.  My intial tests in this regime show some modest improvements in security.

Robert states, "A major goal was that the hitch should demonstrate a high degree of knot security."  He also talks about reducing rope usage and ease of untying after use.  Along those lines, I might direct him to look at the Gnat Hitch:

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/gnathitch.html

I'm not so sure I agree with the idea of the hitch taking a load while in the process of being tied.  Few hitches do this well, and the load would have to be relatively insignificant.

I don't recall seeing this modification of the ABOK 1688 before.  Interesting.

[Dan_Lehman]

Just a quick reply to indicate that I'm not ignoring the thread,
but it seems to me that a better solution can be found.  This
one should be on the obvious side, in that putting some sort
of u-turn into an end otherwise being pulled straight out --no
matter how nipped-- is a good way to bolster security under
tension.  I'm surprised at some of the test results for some
hitches I'd expect more of; maybe this is partly a function of
chosen materials.

Thanks for all the detailed work, et cetera!

--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

Less than quick, but the topic led me to some fiddling,
and here I'll present images of some results.

Ashley, sadly, seems to have gotten off to a lousy start in his
"snug hitches" section, with most of them having the same
flaw of putting pressure of the SPart directly --sans mitigation--
on the tucked tail, and his redress is to try extra tuckings.
Rather, in what I've fiddled, I avoid this direct presssure,
having some other part take the brunt of the SPart's pull,
protecting the tucked tail.


--dl*
====

[roo]

Ashley, sadly, seems to have gotten off to a lousy start in his
"snug hitches" section

I hope you're not including the ABoK #1688 in which we have a simple, memorable, effective, efficient hitch that only requires ONE under tuck at the very end with no loose superfluous tucks flopping around to get snagged and pulled out.  I wish more hitches were so "lousy"!

, with most of them having the same
flaw of putting pressure of the SPart directly --sans mitigation--
on the tucked tail,

Why is putting pressure where it can do the most good a flaw?  If you try to clamp on a heavily tensioned part, it's going to have much less stopping power.

[Dan_Lehman]

Ashley, sadly, seems to have gotten off to a lousy start in his
"snug hitches" section

I hope you're not including the ABoK #1688 ...

If the shoe fits, ... .  Yes, that is a good enough paradigm.
(And I see the tail tucked under two parts, and some needed
care to dress it thus.)  Consider the severe testing to which
the OP wants the hitch to withstand.  His solution of putting
in a u-turn is one obvious way to redress the tail's being able
to be pulled out.

... , with most of them having the same
flaw of putting pressure of the SPart directly --sans mitigation--
on the tucked tail,

Why is putting pressure where it can do the most good a flaw?  If you try to clamp on a heavily tensioned part, it's going to have much less stopping power.

My wording isn't so good, here: I mean that the SPart pulls
directly against the tucked tail.  (And it can't deliver that full
pressure in many of these hitches until it has pulled sufficient
tail out, if one sets the knot tight by hauling on the tail
--i.e., the initial force bears into the bight w/the tail as
one leg, before the tension flows around the object to
clamp on the tail.)

(Oddly, in a braided mason line around a shovel handle's
smooth breadth, the knot I show in upper-right --with
*options* on tying ("A", "B", or both as "C")-- actually
tightened (= shrank the bight around the SPart) as I
repeatedly jerk-loaded it (which, frankly, I don't like it
doing, as it makes untying a tad tedious) !?)


--dl*
====

[firebight]

Those a real nice drawings Dan. Makes following your diagrams easy.